01/02/2012

Impact of the Tohoku Earthquake
and the accident at theFukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant to the energy policies inthe EU and Japan
26 November, 2011,
Kwansei Gakuin University
Eve Päärendson
President of the Contact Group on Japan of theEESC
1Content• Legislative framework of the EU energy
ppolicyy• Reaction to the accident at theFukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant– Future of nuclear industry– Impact of Germany
Germany´ss decision to phase
phase-outoutnuclear plants• Estonia-Mitsubishi cooperation• Conclusions / recommendations21

01/02/2012

The key issues of the EU:• Future stable & secure supply of energy:– EU imports 82% of its oil & 57% of its gas– 40% increase of global energy demand within 20years• Rising energy prices & increasing dependance onenergy imports is a risk for Europe´s security &competitiveness• Need to speak with an united, one voice (the EU“Energy 2020” Strategy - strengthening theexternal EU energy policy)• Need for long-term vision for energy policy (EnergyRoadmap 2050)• Single Energy Market3

Energy policy of the EU• Energy policy of the EU:– the Lisbon Treaty sets out the objectives forth EU energy policy
theli– The Europe 2020 develops these further• Need for long-term vision in energy policy(Energy Roadmap 2050)• The EU´s energy policy is a mix ofnational & EU policy→split competence– EU vs Member States energy interests4201/02/2012

The objectives of the EU energypolicy• Ensuring security of energy supply• Enhancing competitiveness• Ensuring sustainability

5Climate & energy package: 20-20-20(EU 2020 Growth Startegy)– greenhouse gas emissions 20% (or even30%, if the conditions are right)
lower than 1990
– 20% of energy from renewables– 20% iincrease iin energy efficiency
ffi i6301/02/2012

EU Strategy “Energy 2020”:
competitive, sustainable & secure energy• Achieving an energy efficient Europe (20% energy savingsby 2020)• Building a truly pan-European integrated energy market• Empowering consumers and achieving the highest level ofsafety and security• Extending Europe's leadership in energy technology andinnovation• Strengthening the external dimension of the EU energymarket
7Reaction to the accident at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant:• Safety reviews - need for greater transparency
regarding safety of nuclear industry→ thep& transparent
prisk & safety
y assessment
comprehensive(stress tests) of all EU existing & planned nuclear
plants– Immediate shutdown of older reactors (Germany), limited
or no further lifetime extensions for aging reactors(Germany, UK), suspension of new plants approval, reevaluation of planned energy policy with greater focus
on energy efficiency & switch to renewables)• EC will review the existing legal & regulatory
framework for the safety of nuclear installations.
MSs should implement the directive on the managementof spent fuel & radioactive waste• The highest standards for nuclear energy in the EU &8
promotion of nuclear safety internationally401/02/2012

Reaction to the accident at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant:• Public debates on:– Climate protection (emission reduction) vs European
competitiveness (economic growth, jobs)– Safety & transparency in nuclear energy• Before Fukushima Governments – industry dialogue,
after Fukushima public acceptance plays importantrole→involvement of civil society organisations– Future of the EU´s energy policy, common energy
market– Energy mix (energy mix is in competence of MSs &depends on national differences
differences, technologicaldevelopment, investments capacity) & energy price (taxpolicy)• we need long-term vision for energy policy based on
reseach & facts , not emotions based decisions:“No to nuclear energy! (GER, ITA, Switzerland),Yes to renewables!

• Nuclear energy is a political issue

9Reaction to the accident at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant:• Increased anti-nuclear sentiment (ITA, GER, ES, CH)• Rising expectations for alternative & renewable energies• Energy efficiency in homes, business & industry (Energy
Efficiency Plan 2011)• Education & changing of consumers behaviour• External dimension of the EU
EU´ss energy policy - Securityof energy supply and international cooperation – “The EU
Energy Policy: Engaging with Partners Beyond OurBorders”• Need for long-term vision and planning of energy policy(Energy Roadmap 2050)
105

01/02/2012

Fukushima - Sequence of events
11 March: Tsunami and beginning of Fukushima accident
15 March: Extraordinary meeting EC/DG Energy (Commissioner level) with
EU Regulators ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group) ÆConclusion: Needs for “stress tests”
21 March: Extraordinary Energy Council with Energy MinistersÆ Member States and the Commission invite ENSREG and other relevantbodies to define the scope and modalities of such “stress tests”
24 May: ENSREG and commission reach agreement:Æ Comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessment of all EU
nuclear plants (stress tests will be conducted by independantnational authrorities)
Æ Stress tests covering safety were launched on 1 June 2011. The
assessment is based on an amended version of the WENRA (Western
European Nuclear Regulators’ Association) proposalÆ Safety and security will be handled separately, with two different
timeframes
Æ A specific group on “security tests” was established by the EC andthe EU MS by 15 July
Æ Must not lead to a ranking of NPPs
11

EU NPP stress tests: scope defined byENSREG and EC
Focus placed on the following issues:
Initial events:- Earthquake- Flooding
Consequences of loss of safety functions from any initiating
event conceivable at the plant site:- Loss of electrical power, including station black out- Loss of the ultimate heat sink
- Combination of both
SSevere accident
id t managementt issues:i- Means to protect from and to manage loss of core cooling
function- Means to protect from and to manage loss of cooling
function in the fuel storage pool
- Means to protect from and to manage loss of containment
integrity126

01/02/2012

Stress tests – process.

Self-Assessment by Licensees

National report by National Regulators

PPeerreview
iEC report to the EU Council

13

Stress test implementation - Keymilestones•

1 June: national regulators initiate the tests process•

15 August: operators carry out reassessments and submit progress
reports to national regulators•

15 September: regulators consolidate the data into national progress
reports → first input to EC.

•31 October: operators’ final reports•

15 Nov: EC viewpoint on the process – EC progress report to theEuropean Council•

9 Dec: European Council•12 December:
Dblargelconference
fon nuclearlsafetyf t organizedi d bby EESC•

End of 2011: final national reports – opening the door for the peerreviews•30 April 2012: completion of peer reviews•June 2012: consolidated EC report to the European Council
147

01/02/2012

Important decisions we need to make:• Can Europe secure its energy needs without nuclear?
• Gas/Coal/nuclear/oil/renewables? Which renewables? In all
countries, there is a strong opposition to a certain type ofrenewable as well as to the building of the necessaryrenewable,
infrastructure• Energy mix - it is up to member states to assess the energy mix
decisions• Nuclear safety doesnt stop at national borders, especially as
many nuclear plants are close to borders with other MSs• Nuclear issue is an international issue & international
standards of safety and transparency need to be followed
security: there is enough energy in the world but it is• Energy security
in problematic places, nuclear energy is the only kind ofenergy that answers the problem of energy security,independence, and climate change• Many issues must be confronted before getting nuclear energy(politics, planning, price, people, permission, parts )15

Nuclear today in the EU• Over 140 reactors in the EU: almost a third of EUelectricity, two thirds of low-carbon electricity• Nuclear contributes to security of supply,competitiveness and sustainability (900 mio tons ofCO2 avoided)• EU nuclear industry in leading role
• Public opinion recognises opportunities and risks,
and the vital need for more transparency

168

01/02/2012

Nuclear Power Reactors in Europe
Source: European Nuclear Society,http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-planteurope.htmin operation
under construction
Countrynet
capacity
MWeNoNonet
capacity
MWe

Belgium

75,927--

Bulgaria
l

2

1,906

2

1.906

Czech Repuplic

63,678--Finland

4

2,716

1

1,600

France58

63,1301

1,600

Germany

912,068--

1,889--

4
Hungary

Netherlands

1487-

Romania2

1,300--

Russian Federation

32

22,693

119,153

Slovakian Republic

4

1,816

2782

Slovenia

1688-

-

Spain

8

7,567--

Sweden109,298--

Switzerland

53,263--Ukraine

1513,107

21,900

United Kingdom
total

1910,137--

187

161,665

1916,941

17

Nuclear Power Reactors
Regions in operation (underconstruction)• World• EU• USA• Japan• Russia• India• Canada

432
135
10450
32
20
18(65)
(6)
(1)
(2)
(11)
(5)
(0)

• China14(27)• Slow decline of nuclear
energy startedt t d beforeb fFukushima already (sinceChernobyl only 2 new reactors
established in the EU)!
(177 NPP 1989→135 in 2011)• Average age of the world´soperating NPPs – 26 years• Fukushima+economic crisis+tightening competition→
debate on energy mix, energy
prices

Source: European Nuclear Society: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-18
power-plant-world-wide.htm

901/02/2012

A vision for the future

19

Arguments against nuclear:• Nuclear energy carries safety, financial,political & security risks which are notpresent to the same degree,present,degree with other formsof alternative power• No progress on long term waste solution,• Costs are higher than predicted, gets more
expensive as time goes on due to constant
updating of safety measures• Plenty of alternatives, i.e. renewable energy
BUT a large number of EU “energy experts” still
think that nuclear energy should continue
playing a role until a significant replacementof fossil fuel is realised: the main questionis how?
2010

01/02/2012

Public perception about nuclear inthe EU• Government and public opinions across the EU are very diverse• Fukushima has led to more rejection/scepticism at both levels:
fear of nuclear is spreading across Europe• Post-Fukushima: Germany, Italy (referendum), and Switzerland tophase out nuclear• Austria proposes to ban nuclear energy imports• Lack of reliable data about the « real » costs of nuclear• Implications of Fukushima still under assessment with much yetto be reported• We can also see an opposite trends: for instance Finland has 4
nuclear reactors, 5th under construction & 2 more are plannedby 2014. Nuclear electricity generation – 30% in 2011→50% by
2050
UK, Czech Republic etc, plan to continue with their nuclear power
21plants.

Phase-out of Germany’s nuclearplants•

Before Fukushima: NPP supply 25% of German electricity•Just after Fukushima: 3-month moratorium and the 8 oldest nuclear
plantslare put offline
ffli•

Decision to phase out ALL nuclear plants (17 in total) by 2022 at
the latest, opening the way for a real industrial energy
revolution→greater focus on energy efficiency measures & switch torenewables•

Objective: renewable sources to provide 35% of electricity by 2020,
up from about 13% today (and reach 80% by 2050)•Germany will become a net importer of electricity (it was anexporter before Fukushima) during the transition period•

Electricity prices hiked in the surrounding countries (Belgium, TheNetherlands in particular) by around 10% after Germany’s decision•Higher risk of supply shortcuts (e.g. France often imports
22electricity from Germany in summer period because of low river levels
and lack of cooling water for NPP)

11

01/02/2012

Economic cost of Germany’s nucleardecision•Impacts companies throughout Europe•

EC should carry out an ASSESSMENT of the short-&medium terms impacts of thisgy costs,, energy
gy securityy & CO2 p
prices in Europep
decision on energy•Higher energy bills for households, SMEs & large energy-consuming companies
in Germany in the coming years•

Energy security – switching off a number of NPP challenge for the balanceof electricity grid - large energy consumers might be forced to shut down
their production → massive economic cost (loss of jobs)•CO2 prices- since 2005, single European price of CO2 under the EU Emission
Trading Scheme (ETS) – in short term, German nuclear power plants will becompensated by more emission-intensive
emission intensive coal & gas-fired
gas fired power plants,
plants theprice of emission allowances will increase for approx. 11 000 companies inEurope. Plus indirect effect of CO2 to the electricity prices•Energy prices on average higher in Europe than in many our trading partnercountries→impact on European competitiveness•Companies want to operate in predictable EU policy framework - need for
addressing the issue in EU Energy Roadmap 2050

23How much does it really cost?
For instance:
According to a new study a move from
75% to 50% of the share of nuclear
in the French energy mix would cost
an extra 60 billion EUR andincrease the energy bill by 50% in
the next 20 years.
2412

01/02/2012

Energy efficiency: best practice

http://www.businesseurope.eu/Content/
Default asp?PageID=736
Default.asp?PageID=736

25

What is important for businesses?
Businesses support• the EUs climate & energy targets for 2020 & the idea of 2050
roadmap (strategies, investments)•International offsets for achieving reduction levels•EU policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as the Emission
Trading Scheme, renewable energy policy, Implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol and post-2012 international action**********************************************************************************• European companies want to operate in a predictable EU policy
framework, which integrates climate protection, energy security as
well as competitiveness concerns.
• Energy efficiency & energy losses: 60% conversions & 10%
distribution losses in energy sector• long-term vision for energy policy, because decarbonisationpressumes huge investments (Energy Road Map 2050)• energy is very important cost factor for industry & the energy
26
price is already higher in the EU comparing to many other trading
partner countries13

01/02/2012

Estonia-Japan cooperation:
smart solutions for electricity
sectorEstonia-Mitsubishi Corporation cooperation:• Signing the memorandum of understanding (21.10.2011)••••

Energy efficient buildings
Diversified generation of renewable energy
Environmentally friendly transport
Supply of energy to smaller islands

Mr Andrus Ansip, Prime Minister ofEstonia and Mr Ogata, Vice-President of
Mitsubishi Corporation
21.11.2011

Estonia signs Memorandum of Understanding with
Mitsubishi Corporation: Mr Ogata, VP
Mitsubishi Corporation & Mr Kristen Michal,
Minister of Justice of Estonia

27

Estonia-Mitsubishi Corporationelectric car project:.

10 million
carbon dioxidecredits(Estonia´sunused AAUs –assignedamount units)• countrywide
infrastructure forfcharging
electric cars
• 507
environmentally friendly
electric cars

10% of Estonia´s transport sector relay on renewable energy by 202028

14

01/02/2012

Conclusions• Reducing our use of fossil fuels at theinternational level is an immense political,
financial and technological challenge• Fukushima
F k hi hashsignificantly
i ifi
tl changed
hd public
bli
perceptions regarding nuclear energy in the EU• Re-evaluation of the safety of nuclear power
generation technology• Re-assessmentRt off energy policyliandd energy mix,i
“more Europe” is needed in energy policy,
international cooperation in energy field & nuclear
safety• Fukushima put in the agenda focus on renewables &29
energy efficiency

Conclusions: recommendations• Objective & independent evaluation of Fukushima
accident• Need for assessment of Crisis Communication,
information dissemination & CSOs participation indisaster relief (based on Fukushima case)• Skills shortage - lack of nuclear energy experts (2025many of them will retire)→more EU-Japan relevant
students & reserach exchange3015

01/02/2012

Conclusions: recommendations• EU & Japan should continue dialogue on energy policy:– Exchange experience & best practices on policy-setting
policy setting
for secure, safe & sustainable energy– Exchanging views on long-term planning & energy mix– Strenghten EU-Japan cooperation on research & innovation
on energy technologies, defining international standardsfor safety of nuclear power plants, smart grids– EU-Japan
EU Japan cooperation on renewables: (supportive
legislative framework, funding for the technologicaldevelopment of renewable energies)– Sharing best practices of nuclear safety with new
emerging nuclear countries
31Conclusions• Greater transparency in nuclear energy
Deciding that nuclear energy must continue (or not)playing a role in the next 50 years cannot be done by thepoliticians and industrialists alone - civil society
pymust have a say– The EESC
• chairs a Working Group on Transparency in thenuclear energy: to support the fair access toinformation and people’s engagement into nuclear
energy debates• conference on nuclear safety: “Nuclear safety: A
Much Needed Public Debate”, 12.12.2011 in Brussels• Explore options for closer EU-Japan civil society
dialogue (Crisis communication & information

dissemination, disaster preparedness, prevention &disaster relief field, psychological support for victims,
32
best practices in energy saving field etc)16

01/02/2012

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
DOOMO ARIGATO GOZAIMASTA!
European Economic and Social Committee(EESC)
Eve Päärendson
E-mail: eve@employers.ee
Tel: +3725054570
Web: www.eesc.europa.eu
33

17